Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41249473›Full record

ArticleNPJ digital medicine2025

Can co-designed educational interventions help consumers think critically about asking ChatGPT health questions? Results from a randomised-controlled trial.

Julie Ayre, Melody Taba, Brooke Nickel, Geoffrey Edlund, Trang Vu, Julia Yan, Lorna Butters, Ivan C K Ma, Kirsten J McCaffery

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Julie AyreSydney Health Literacy Lab, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. julie.ayre@sydney.edu.au.
Melody TabaSydney Health Literacy Lab, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Brooke NickelSydney Health Literacy Lab, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Geoffrey EdlundCo-SHeLL, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Trang VuCo-SHeLL, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Julia YanCo-SHeLL, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Lorna ButtersCo-SHeLL, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Ivan C K MaCo-SHeLL, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Kirsten J McCafferySydney Health Literacy Lab, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council APP1194108National Health and Medical Research Council APP2016719National Health and Medical Research Council APP2017278
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This randomised controlled trial evaluated two brief co-designed health literacy educational interventions (animation; images) to help people critically reflect on asking ChatGPT health questions. Australian adults with experience of ChatGPT, and without university education, were recruited via an online panel. Primary outcomes were intention to ask ChatGPT questions in 'lower' and 'higher' risk health scenarios. The analysis sample comprised 592 of 619 participants. The animation group (n = 191) reported lower intention to use ChatGPT for higher risk scenarios (M = 2.42/5, 95%CI: 2.27 to 2.56) compared to the images group (n = 203, M = 2.69/5, 95%CI: 2.54 to 2.83, p = 0.010). Both reported lower intentions compared to a control group who had not viewed the educational content (n = 205, M = 3.12/5, 95%CI: 2.98 to 3.27, p < 0.001). There was no effect on intentions to use ChatGPT for lower risk scenarios (p = 0.800). This study represents an initial step towards addressing health literacy skills for navigating AI tools safely. Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials registration: ACTRN 12624000641594.

Identifiers

PMID41249473
PMCPMC12623733

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.